See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273316448

A New Approach to Military Decision Making Process: Suggestions from MCDM

Point of View

Conference Paper · March 2015

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4139.3449

CITATIONS READS
11 7,716

2 authors:

Kerim Goztepe Cengiz Kahraman

Sakarya University Istanbul Technical University
62 PUBLICATIONS   517 CITATIONS    752 PUBLICATIONS   20,683 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

reliability measurement and improvement View project

Spherical Fuzzy Sets View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kerim Goztepe on 09 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 118

A New Approach to Military Decision Making

Process: Suggestions from MCDM Point of
View
K. Goztepe C.Kahraman

 approach for MDMP structure is built up by applying the

Abstract—Decision making process is a systematic way of MCDM tools.
problem solving for any scientific research area. The military
decision-making process (MDMP) is a proven analytical process II. MULTI CRITERIA DECISION MAKING (MCDM)
for designing operations, troop’s movements, logistics or air TECHNIQUES
defense planning. MDMP is a way of army’s analytical approach
to problem solving. This paper investigates the current use of Generally a decision-making process has four main steps:
MDMP and presents a new approach to MDMP from multi identifying the problems, constructing the preferences,
criteria decision making (MCDM) point of view. evaluating the alternatives, and determining the best
alternative(s) [10],[11]. Military decision makers should know
Index Terms—Decision making, Military Decision Making MCDM techniques in order to give right decision. Below short
Process –MDMP, Multi Criteria Decision Making -MCDM, definitions of the most commonly used MCDM techniques are
given.

I. INTRODUCTION A. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

D ECISION making in uncertainty environment is about

making choices between alternatives whose results are
not predictable [1]. The army has a problem solving approach
AHP was introduced by Saaty [12]. Its’ main aim is to
model subjective decision-making processes based on multiple
attributes in a hierarchical system. AHP technique has been
in different level of war using a basic problem solving process
widely used in selection, planning and benefit/cost analysis by
known as the Military Decision-Making Process
firms or government agencies [13]. A decision problem must
(MDMP)[2],[3]. Army problem solving approach can be used
be defined by a hierarchical structure in the AHP as in Fig. 1.
to many situations and even non-military problems [4],[5].
MDMP is a standard method of information evaluation and
working to reach a solution. It has proven a useful and elastic
method in many situations. From this scope it is well known
fact for commanders that decision making is a fundamental
element to achieve goal in any military operation [6],[7].
Lecturers teach commanders a systematic method of analyzing
combat problems to find an optimal solution during initial and
subsequent training in military colleges [8],[9].

A new MDMP approach for battlefield operations or

operation planning is proposed in this paper. This study
addresses the design of a MCDP in order to access optimal
solution decision/plan in battlefield. Initially, steps that are
Fig. 1. The hierarchical structure of the AHP [14]
determined for the new MDMP approach are formed by
applying military decision making experts. Then, new
B. Analytic Network Process (ANP)
The Analytic Network Process (ANP) is a generalization of
Ltc. Kerim Goztepe, Ph.d.War Colleges Command, Army War College, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Usually, it is not
Dept. of Operations and Intelligence, 4. Levent, 34330, Pbx: +90 212 398- possible to structure many decision problems hierarchically.
0100/3262, İstanbul-Turkey, e-mail: [email protected]. They involve the interaction and dependence of higher-level
Prof.Dr.Cengiz Kahraman, İstanbul Technical University, Dept.of
Industrial Engineering, Maçka, İstanbul-Turkey, Pbx, elements in a hierarchy on lower-level elements generally [14].
e-mail: [email protected]. Interdependence and feedback that may be seen in evaluation
 119

criteria has not been defined in AHP method. To make up for incomplete prioritization and choosing a set
these deficiencies, ANP method was developed by Saaty [15]. of promising alternatives. In ranking alternatives The
ELECTRE II is used for ranking the. ELECTRE III was
C. Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) Method developed to improve ELECTRE II and consider inaccurate,
SAW method is introduced by Churchman and Ackoff to imprecise or uncertainty of data [24].
solve a portfolio selection problem [16]. This method is
probably the best known and widely used method for multiple Refer to the following resources for further information
attribute decision making MADM. Method has a simple about Gray Relational Model, Fuzzy Integral and other
structure and easy to use. Best alternative can be obtained MCDM techniques [11],[14], [17],[18].
using below Eq.1 and 2 [17]:
III. PROPOSED MILITARY DECISION MAKING PROCESS USING
*

A  ui ( x) | max ui (x) | i  1, 2,...n
i
 (1) MCDM APPROACH

n A. MDMP Usage in Today’s Operation Planning

ui ( x)   w j rij ( x) (2) There are seven steps in military decision-making according
j 1 to the literature [2],[7] (See Fig. 2). These are; receipt of
where ui ( x) denotes the utility of the ith alternative and mission, mission analysis, course of action development,
course of action analysis, course of action comparison, course
i = 1,2,…,n; wj denotes the weights of the jth criterion;
of action approval and orders production. Each step of the
rij ( x) is the normalized preferred ratings of the ith alternative process needs input of previous steps. Decision makers use
with respect to the jth criterion for all commensurable units; inputs of every previous step in order to construct decision.
and all criteria are assumed to be independent.

D. Topsis
Hwang and Yoon [18] developed Technique for Order
Preferences by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)
method. TOPSIS is a classical approach to multi-attribute or
multi-criteria decision making (MADM/MCDM) problems. It
is a practical and useful technique for ranking and selection of
a number of externally determined alternatives through
distance measures [19].
E. Vikor
VIKOR (The VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I
Kompromisno Resenje) method has developed for
multicriteria optimization of complex systems especially. It
focuses on selecting and rating from a set of alternatives, and
determines compromise solutions for a problem with
conflicting criteria, which can help the decision makers to
reach a final decision [20]. VIKOR is a useful tool in
multicriteria decision making in situation where the decision Fig.2. Military decision-making process [2]
makers experience is not sufficient for problem design [18]. B. Proposed MDMP Approach

F. Promethee A military decision support system should endorse

PROMETHEE is an outranking method in MCDM operations planning and strategic decisions in any level of
techniques [18]. Constructing the mathematical model of military organization. Commanders should investigate the use
PROMETHEE is relatively easy for the decision makers to of developing methods of decision support systems and
understand. This method reflects human perspectives and training to arrive at better decisions. The proposed MDMP
decision maker can easily find out the preferences among framework is demonstrated by the flow chart in Fig.3.
multiple decisions [21] PROMETHEE methods have
significant place among the outranking methods [18],[22].
G. Electre
The first outranking method called ELimination Et Choice
Translating Reality, ELECTRE I, was developed by Roy in
1968 [23]. The ELECTRE I is handy in constructing an
 120

AHP for four COA is given below. (See the

references [25], [26] about AHP-ANP applications.)
Stage 1. Construct COA decision matrix
The matrix which shows the pairwise comparisons (Table 1)
between factors is obtained as seen in Eq.3
1
aij  (3)
a ji
Table 1. Sample matrix for COA weights

Criteria COA1 COA2 COA3 COA4

COA1 1 5 3 2
COA2 1/5 1 1/4 7
COA3 1/3 4 1 9
COA4 1/2 1/7 1/9 1

Stage 2. Determination of “Relative Importance Vector”

Once the pairwise comparison matrix is formed, local

priorities are calculated by solving for the eigenvector of the
pairwise comparison matrix.
 b11 
Fig.3. Proposed Military Decision Making Process
aij b 
bij  n , Bi   
21
(4)
 ... 
i aij
Flowchart of new MDMP approach is given Fig.2. Five main
steps have been used for proposed framework. They are given  
below. bn1  nx1
Step 1. Receipt of Mission Stage 3. Form Matrix “C” using bij
Once the local weights are calculated, global weights can be
MDMP starts with the receipt or anticipation of a new
calculated by combining local weights with respect to all
mission. Source of reception is not important. New mission
successive hierarchical levels.
request may come from higher headquarters, or derive from an
ongoing operation.  b11 b12 ... b1n 
Step 2. Mission Analysis b b ... b2 n 
C   21 22 (5)
Mission analysis is important process for make right  ... ... ... ... 
decision. Commander should imagine battlefield situations  
from mission point of view. At the end of mission analysis bn1 bn 2 ... bnn  nxn
process, commander defines tactical problem and starts the
process of determining feasible solutions.  0.493 0.493 0.688 0.105 
Step 3. COA Development and Analysis Applying MCDM
0.099 0.099 0.057 0.368 
C
After receiving guidance, the staff develops COAs for  0.163 0.394 0.229 0.474 
analysis and comparison using MCDM approach. The  
commander takes care of decision process and involves in 0.246 0.014 0.025 0.053
entire decision development. Each of COA should meet Stage 4. Calculation of the weights of COA
qualities of suitability, feasibility, acceptability,
distinguishability, and completeness. n

C
j 1
ij
There are many MCDM techniques for decision making Wj  , w1=1.779/4=0.445; w2= 0.623/4=0.156;
process. A sample military decision making process applying n
 121

w3= 1.260/4=0.315; w4= 0.338/4=0.085 (6) [4] H.Strachan, Making strategy: Civil–military
relations after Iraq.Survival, 48(3), pp.59-82, 2006.
[5] C.P.Gibson, Securing the state: reforming the national security
Stage 5.Measurement of the “Consistency Ratio” decisionmaking process at the civil-military nexus. Ashgate Publishing,
Ltd., 2008.
CI
CR  (7)
[6] C.P. Gibson, D.M. Snider, Civil-Military Relations and the Potential to
Influence: A Look at the National Security Decision-Making
RI Process. Armed Forces & Society, 25(2), pp.193-218, 1999.
[7] M. Kress. Operational logistics: The art and science of sustaining
In Equation 7, CI, RI and CR represent consistency indicator,
military operations. Springer, 2002.
random indicator and consistency ratio, respectively. For [8] D. Aberdeen, S. Thiébaux, L. Zhang, June). Decision-Theoretic Military
accepted consistency, CI [12] must be smaller than 0.10. Operations Planning. In ICAPS, pp. 402-412, 2004.
[9] M.D. Hayes, G.F. Wheatley, Interagency and Political-Military
Dimensions of Peace Operations: Haiti-A Case Study. National Defense
Step 4. Comparison of COA Alternatives
Univ Washington Dc Inst for National Strategic Studies. 1996.
[10] H.A. Simon, The new science of management decision. New Jersey:
Best COA is determined in this step. Comparison starts with Prentice Hall PTR, 1977.
each staff officer analyzing and evaluating the advantages and [11] R.L. Keeney, H. Raiffa, Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences
and value trade-offs. Cambridge university press, 1993.
disadvantages of each COA from perspective of applied
[12] T.L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill,
MCDM technique. COAs are adjusted lined according to their 1980.
decreasing weight values obtained from MCDM method. [13] C. Kahraman, İ. Kaya, S. Cebi, A comparative analysis for
Based on calculated values, the ranking of the alternatives can multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using
be seen in this step. fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process. Energy, 34(10), pp.1603-1616, 2009.
[14] E. Triantaphyllou, Multi-criteria decision making methods a
Step 5. Approval of COA comparative study. Springer, 2000.
[15] T.L. Saaty, Decision making with dependence and feedback: The
Commanders or operation planners decide on final selection analytic network process, 1996.
COA in this step. After application MCDM techniques for [16] C.W. Churchman, R.L. Ackoff. (1954). An approximate measure of
MDMP, staff should prepare results of decision making value. Journal of Operations Research Society of America2 (1): 172–87,
1954.
process for commander. Commander must see every operation [17] G.H. Tzeng, J.J. Huang, Multiple attribute decision making: methods
planning criteria weights in proposed model. and applications. CRC Press, 2011.
[18] C.L Hwang, K. Yoon. Multiple attribute decision making, methods and
applications. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems,
IV. CONCLUSION vol.186. Now York: Springer-Verlag, 1981.
Developing a flexible and efficient COA to accomplish the [19] C.Tan, A multi-criteria interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group
decision making with Choquet integral-based TOPSIS. Expert Systems
mission in battlefield is excessively important. The key for the
with Applications, 38(4), pp.3023-3033, 2011.
success is to rapidly apply a decision making process with [20] N. Zhang, G. Wei, (2013). Extension of VIKOR method for decision
appropriate decision making tools. This paper presents a new making problem based on hesitant fuzzy set. Applied Mathematical
approach to military decision making process from MCDM Modelling, 37(7), pp. 4938-4947, 2013.
[21] S. Vinodh, R. Jeya Girubha, PROMETHEE based sustainable concept
point of view. There are different MCDM techniques in the
selection. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 36(11), pp.5301-5308,
literature for decision making process. Although operation 2012.
planning is very crucial for troops few of MCDM are used in [22] C. Kahraman, Multi-criteria decision making methods and fuzzy sets. In
MDMP. Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making Springer US, 2008.
[23] B. Roy, Classement et choix en présence de points de vue
multiples.RAIRO-Operations Research-Recherche Opérationnelle,
The new approach is especially useful for operation 2(V1), pp. 57-75, 1968.
planning if there are many criteria and alternatives in decision [24] A. Zandi, E. Roghanian, Extension of Fuzzy ELECTRE based on
making process. There are seven steps in classical MDMP. We VIKOR method. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 66(2), pp.258-
offer five steps and usage of MCDM and statistical techniques 263, 2013.
[25] K. Goztepe, S. Boran. A decision support system for supplier selection
in this study. The approach associates MCDM and statistical using fuzzy analytic network process (Fuzzy ANP) and artificial neural
techniques, war gaming and army database in a decision network integration. Scientific Research and Essays, 7(43), pp. 3702-
making environment. For further research, we suggest the 3717, 2012.
proposed military decision making process to be applied under [26] K. Goztepe, S. Boran, H.R. Yazgan, Estimating Fuzzy Analytic Network
Process (FANP) Comparison Matrix Weights Using Artificial Neural
incomplete and vague data using the fuzzy set theory. Network, International Journal of Advances in Science and Technology
6 (5), 1-14, 2013.

REFERENCES
[1] G.Parmigiani, L. Inoue, Decision theory: principles and approaches
(Vol. 812). John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
[2] US. Army, U. S. Field Manual 101-5: Staff Organization and
Operations. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1997.
[3] K.M. Eisenhardt, M.J. Zbaracki, Strategic decision making. Strategic
management journal, 13(S2), pp.17-37, 1992
 122

Ltc. Kerim Goztepe, Ph.D, is a lecturer in Department of Operations and

Intelligence / Turkish Army War College. He is interested in fuzzy logic,
neural network, multicriteria decision making and cyber security for
open source systems. Kerim Goztepe is an author of more than thirty
refereed papers, and editor-in-chief of international “Journal of Military
and Information Science”.

Prof. Cengiz Kahraman is a full professor of Industrial Engineering

Department at Istanbul Technical University. His research areas are
engineering economics, quality management, statistical decision making,
multicriteria decision making, and fuzzy decision making. He published
about 160 journal papers and about 120 conference papers. He became
the guest editors of many international journals and the editor of many
international books from Springer and Atlantis Press. He is presently in
the editorial board of about 20 international journals.

View publication stats